nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Masala

Today being Paddy Day 2020... when do you think we will have a ‘flu jab’ / pill / syrup that we can take to make us immune/ les likely to catch this 19 virus?.

Mod: The purpose of this thread is baked into the title - COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures - it's not a platform to push an anti vaccination agenda. If posters wish to discuss the perceived cons of vaccinations, or push various theories regarding 'the agenda' (whatever that is supposed to mean), open a thread elsewhere on it.

Threadbanned Users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Irish Stones

Le Bruise wrote: »

Can you provide a link for this 'news from this morning'?

It was from an Italian newspaper.
Here you go

https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2020/10/20/news/prime-dosi-in-autunno-no-in-primavera-sul-vaccino-scienza-e-politica-non-si-parlano-1.39436747

In Italian and only available to subscribers.

EDIT:
Title: First doses in autumn - No, in spring - About the vaccine, science and politicians don't speak each other
The government wants a shortcut, but experts brake. Ricciardi (one of the experts): timeframes are to be expanded, two shots will be needed.
The article says that the timeframe to be out of the tunnel will be much longer than we believed so far, according to EMA that will have the last word on the matter.

Sweet.Science

Wouldn't believe anything coming from Italy

Le Bruise

Irish Stones wrote: »

It was from an Italian newspaper.
Here you go

https://www.lastampa.it/topnews/primo-piano/2020/10/20/news/prime-dosi-in-autunno-no-in-primavera-sul-vaccino-scienza-e-politica-non-si-parlano-1.39436747

In Italian and only available to subscribers.

Sorry, I edited my post after to say that 5-7 months is still remarkably fast. Even if we take that article for gospel truth, it would mean March to May 2021 to start a roll out, which I'd certainly be happy with!

yosemitesam1

Deleted User wrote: »

The success of trials depend on a certain portion of trial participants being exposed to the virus. Its why a lot of trials moved to south america earlier in the year - chasing infection. And success would be measured by the number of people experiencing symptoms being less than control, not if they test positive. If all the vaccine we to do was prevent serious infection, it is still worth having.

It's being marketed by many as something that will be essential for everyone to get on the basis that this will offer protection to those who are most vulnerable and will struggle to benefit from the vaccine itself.

If positives aren't being monitored, how can anyone say that the vulnerable will get any benefit from the majority of the population being vaccinated?

Lessening the severity of what is a mild disease for the majority of the population is pointless unless a major difference is made to old and other very vulnerable portions of the population

Irish Stones

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wouldn't believe anything coming from Italy

Good for you

Micky 32

Irish Stones wrote: »

A news from this morning says that nothing will be available until next spring, say about 5 to 7 months from now.
Not so fast, I'd say...

It the grand scheme of things 5/7 months isn’t far away. I’ll take the time frame once the light can be seen.

Irish Stones

Le Bruise wrote: »

Sorry, I edited my post after to say that 5-7 months is still remarkably fast. Even if we take that article for gospel truth, it would mean March to May 2021 to start a roll out, which I'd certainly be happy with!

No need to apologize, I edited my post too, to include a brief translation of the news I told you about.

[Deleted User]

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It's being marketed by many as something that will be essential for everyone to get on the basis that this will offer protection to those who are most vulnerable and will struggle to benefit from the vaccine itself.

If positives aren't being monitored, how can anyone say that the vulnerable will get any benefit from the majority of the population being vaccinated?

Lessening the severity of what is a mild disease for the majority of the population is pointless unless a major difference is made to old and other very vulnerable portions of the population

I am not saying that is all the vaccine will do, i am saying if that's all it does it is still of value. Essentially ensuring even vulnerable groups experience at worst mild symptoms. Numbers are suggestion it will give immunity to c.60% of recipients, at least for a time, and if 60% of people are thus unable to catch and transmit the virus, and residual numbers are manageable. It will probably involve large numbers of the population having periodic boosters to maintain immunity until such time as latent resistance builds in the population and it becomes just another cold

Akabusi

Seen on CNN this morning that the UK looking to conduct human challenge trials with an Irish Pharma company, Open Orphan i think.

FintanMcluskey

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

If positives aren't being monitored, how can anyone say that the vulnerable will get any benefit from the majority of the population being vaccinated?

Lessening the severity of what is a mild disease for the majority of the population is pointless unless a major difference is made to old and other very vulnerable portions of the population

This is what I’m curious about.

The vast majority don’t have severe symptoms.

Those most vulnerable are above the age of life expectancy, or those overweight with underlying illnesses.

Are those people involved in the trials? Or do they need to be?

mohawk

Cordell wrote: »

That's simply not true. There is no such thing as risk free drug, all have a level of risk that is reasonably low given their benefits.

To expand on this point. The acceptable side-effects depends on risk v reward. What I mean is it acceptable to have more severe side-effects for stage 4 cancer then we do for an itchy rash. Vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore side effects for the vast, vast majority of people should be mild and not long lasting otherwise it’s not justifiable to approve the vaccines for use. There will be side effects there always are.

Irish Stones

mohawk wrote: »

Vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore side effects for the vast, vast majority of people should be mild and not long lasting otherwise it’s not justifiable to approve the vaccines for use. There will be side effects there always are.

I just wouldn't want further side effects than I already received from this virus.
To me, the optimum would be zero side effects, because I have mine already, don't need more.

ACitizenErased

Irish Stones wrote: »

I just wouldn't want further side effects than I already received from this virus.
To me, the optimum would be zero side effects, because I have mine already, don't need more.

I'm sure the vaccine will cause you a tonne of lifechanging side effects such as immunity to a deadly virus.

We get it, you don't want to take the vaccine, you don't need to keep saying it. Someone else who is willing to help protect their community can take your spot.

[Deleted User]

I know nothing about vaccines.

But unless it’s effective on 80+ year olds in very bad health... I don’t see it greatly reducing the already small death toll in Ireland.

I do think it will change the narrative though, which is ultimately the most important thing.

Sweet.Science

Deleted User wrote: »

I know nothing about vaccines.

But unless it’s effective on 80+ year olds in very bad health... I don’t see it greatly reducing the already small death toll in Ireland.

I do think it will change the narrative though, which is ultimately the most important thing.

Its not about reducing the death toll . Its about reducing people being admitted to hospital

Irish Stones

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I'm sure the vaccine will cause you a tonne of lifechanging side effects such as immunity to a deadly virus.

We get it, you don't want to take the vaccine, you don't need to keep saying it. Someone else who is willing to help protect their community can take your spot.

You're a bit edgy

Take a breath.
I just said that any side effects other than what the chinese virus already gave me would be unwelcome, whatever the advantages are.

ACitizenErased

Irish Stones wrote: »

You're a bit edgy
Take a breath.
I just said that any side effects other than what the chinese virus already gave me would be unwelcome, whatever the advantages are.

Yeah, we get it, you don't need to keep saying it. This thread is for scientific vaccine discussion, not whether or not you want to protect you and your family.

tobefrank321

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Its not about reducing the death toll . Its about reducing people being admitted to hospital

There's still going to be people admitted to hospital even with a vaccine. Its going to take time to vaccinate a majority and there's always going to be some people who produce a poor response to a vaccine.

tobefrank321

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not saying that is all the vaccine will do, i am saying if that's all it does it is still of value. Essentially ensuring even vulnerable groups experience at worst mild symptoms. Numbers are suggestion it will give immunity to c.60% of recipients, at least for a time, and if 60% of people are thus unable to catch and transmit the virus, and residual numbers are manageable. It will probably involve large numbers of the population having periodic boosters to maintain immunity until such time as latent resistance builds in the population and it becomes just another cold

I think some if not all of the vaccines don't actually stop you catching the virus, (similar to all vaccines). The danger from viruses like this is not catching them but how the immune system responds. Its also unclear if the vaccines will stop you transmitting it to others. This for me is a critical question. And also that those in vulnerable categories are protected by the vaccine.

But if more people end up with a milder version this is definitely a positive, although the vast majority had mild versions already.

I have my doubts the vaccines will be as effective as some people think in bringing this all to a close.

Hmmzis

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I think some if not all of the vaccines don't actually stop you catching the virus, (similar to all vaccines). The danger from viruses like this is not catching them but how the immune system responds. Its also unclear if the vaccines will stop you transmitting it to others. This for me is a critical question. And also that those in vulnerable categories are protected by the vaccine.

But if more people end up with a milder version this is definitely a positive, although the vast majority had mild versions already.

I have my doubts the vaccines will be as effective as some people think in bringing this all to a close.

Well, even the mild cases can face some systemic effects from the de novo infection. The ground glass opacities in lungs have been seen in asymptomatic people as well. The systemic effects are what get people into trouble either during the acute phase or after it. A vaccine that prevents that from happening is of value even in the young and healthy population. It reduces the overall disease burden on the healthcare system.
This is actually setting a rather low bar for a vaccine. Then again, it worked out just fine with polio that way.

galway_cowboy

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I'm sure the vaccine will cause you a tonne of lifechanging side effects such as immunity to a deadly virus.

"deadly"

For me, the risk is in the range of: 20-49 years: 0.0002%

Yeah, I think I'll take my chances with that rather than some rushed vaccine thanks.

D.Q

galway_cowboy wrote: »

"deadly"

For me, the risk is in the range of: 20-49 years: 0.0002%

Yeah, I think I'll take my chances with that rather than some rushed vaccine thanks.

Any chance the lunatics and cowboys could set up their own "I'll tAkE mY ChAnCes THanKs" thread?

galway_cowboy

D.Q wrote: »

Any chance the lunatics and cowboys could set up their own "I'll tAkE mY ChAnCes THanKs" thread?

Can you assure me that the risks from the vaccine will be less than covid i.e. 0.0002% ? Why wouldn't I wait a year or so, to see how it pans out?

D.Q

galway_cowboy wrote: »

Can you assure me that the risks from the vaccine will be less than covid i.e. 0.0002% ? Why wouldn't I wait a year or so, to see how it pans out?

:pac::pac:

not getting a bite from this fish Cowboy.

ACitizenErased

galway_cowboy wrote: »

Can you assure me that the risks from the vaccine will be less than covid i.e. 0.0002% ? Why wouldn't I wait a year or so, to see how it pans out?

Who cares about the risk to you? The risk is you pass it onto someone vulnerable. The world doesn't revolve around your health.

Beasty

Irish Stones wrote: »

You're a bit edgy
Take a breath.
I just said that any side effects other than what the chinese virus already gave me would be unwelcome, whatever the advantages are.

Call it the "Chinese virus" again and you will be carded for trolling

Any questions PM me. Do not respond to this warning in thread

tobefrank321

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Who cares about the risk to you? The risk is you pass it onto someone vulnerable. The world doesn't revolve around your health.

Those least likely to take the vaccine for public and herd health reasons are also those least likely to isolate when returning from abroad or if they have symptoms. The "I'll do my own thing and to hell with everyone else" attitude is very popular in this country.

polesheep

Hmmzis wrote: »

Well, even the mild cases can face some systemic effects from the de novo infection. The ground glass opacities in lungs have been seen in asymptomatic people as well. The systemic effects are what get people into trouble either during the acute phase or after it. A vaccine that prevents that from happening is of value even in the young and healthy population. It reduces the overall disease burden on the healthcare system.
This is actually setting a rather low bar for a vaccine. Then again, it worked out just fine with polio that way.

I suspect that in the public's perception, the bar has been set very high for a Covid vaccine and anything less than total immunity will be seen as a failure.

yosemitesam1

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Who cares about the risk to you? The risk is you pass it onto someone vulnerable. The world doesn't revolve around your health.

There is no evidence to suggest that will be the outcome from vaccination.

ACitizenErased

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There is no evidence to suggest that will be the outcome from vaccination.

Most of the trials so far have shown massive reduction in viral load in the upper airway, one of the biggest methods of transmission. Chances are that it will be the outcome.